Friday, August 31, 2018

VAWidowSharonScarrellaAnderson4MNAG2018MNLawyerreQuirkyKevinFeatherly

Home / All News / Quirky candidate Anderson’s running for AG—again Sharons Corrections

Ballot box

Quirky candidate Anderson’s running for AG—again

Anyone spending an hour interviewing Minnesota attorney general candidate Sharon Anderson is likely to wish a libel lawyer were present.
We can’t repeat the various allegations, old and new, that the Republican hopeful lodged in an hour-long Aug. 2 interview. Which is to say, we can’t relate a lot of what she has to say. But here’s one relativelybenign sample:
“I’ve been thrown in jail, thrown in nut wards,” Anderson said. “They’re trying to bug me in this house. I’ve been reduced to poverty. They tried to hack my computer with my Windows 10.”
Alone among nine candidates in this profile series, Anderson declined to meet or be photographed. As a partial explanation for that, she said that she recently heard radio host Rush Limbaugh say on air that White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders now needs a security detail. Anderson, obviously, has no such luxury.
“Now, I’m not big and important like that,” she said. “But I do rock a lot of boats with a lot of people.”
A lot of people rock boats with her, too.
Over decades, Anderson has filed voluminous lawsuits against judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, elected officials and banks. She remains perpetually miffed with the authorities who evicted her from her St. Paul Summit Avenue residence in 1988 for failing to pay property taxes. (She says she can prove she paid up and that the property remains hers.)
Though she began running for office at least a decade before that, her eviction is at the root of a perpetual quest to attack public malfeasance, using the ballot box.
“How am I, with no money, going to expose government corruption?” she said. “Only by being a candidate.” She already looks ahead to her next race for St. Paul City Council, she said.
Anderson remains vexed, too, by her 1996 arrest in Itasca County on terroristic threat and harassment charges, which led to 94 days in a psychiatric ward. Eventually a judge released her after finding her in partial remission from her illness.
One positive came from that experience—a campaign slogan. “I am the only certified sane candidate,” Anderson says happily. She has had made the most of her motto.
Anderson has run for everything from state House to Minnesota Supreme Court justice, even U.S. president. Her electoral record roughly parallels her trial record; she rarely comes close to winning. She has, however, cracked 30 percent at the polls nine times, most recently in a 2016 state Senate race.
And she can look back on one startling triumph. In 1994, Anderson beat Tom Neuville in the attorney general’s race primary. Neuville, then a state senator, retired in January from his job as a Rice County district court judge.
Surprisingly, Anderson said she found that experience rather joyless. She can think of only one moment she really liked—being interviewed in radio talk show host Barbara Carlson’s famous hot tub. “That was fun!” she said.
Exposing corruption
Anderson can be disarmingly warm when talking of her hosta plants or the kitty mewing in the background. But she can shock, too. The figures who populate her Centaurus-like constellation of grievances, for example, often get indecorous appellations attached to their names—“the Muslim,” “the lesbian,” “the black man.”
Sometimes she moves from one mood extreme to the other in a single ping-pong paragraph of dialogue. “I know I am hard to follow,” she said. “But I have 40 years of evidence on all this stuff.”
Her life’s purpose is to lay all that evidence out to the public, revealing government abuses that she says have been visited on her and other people—like convicted parental-rights violator Sandra Grazzini-Rucki—whose causes she champions. You can look up those manifold allegations on her campaign web site, blog postings and long litigation trail. We’ll refrain—that libel attorney is still not handy.
While she acknowledges winning is not her aim, Anderson claims she is “more serious” than usual about this race. For that, she cites twin causes: Donald Trump and Keith Ellison.
“I am loyal to Donald Trump,” Anderson swoons. “I love that man. I love his family.”
She calls the president her “mentor,” though one wonders if the reverse couldn’t be true. Her innovative 1994 campaign promise to throw Skip Humphrey in prison for treason predates the Trumpian “Lock her up!” chant by two full decades.
Her feelings toward Ellison are noticeably less rhapsodic. Because of his religion, she said, Ellison is unqualified to be attorney general. If he should win, she fears being recast as a “second-class citizen.”
“Ellison is a Muslim,” she says dispositively. “How can a Muslim take an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution? He can’t. He owes his allegiance to the Quran and to sharia law.”
She cannot be convinced that Islam’s followers constitute no unified, purpose-driven bloc in opposition to her politics. “There is only one kind of Muslim that I know of,” Anderson said.
We feel morally obliged to point out that she is wrong. To state the obvious, Sunnis, Shiites and Sufis are three major Islamic variants of Islam and they have major doctrinal differences. Ellison reportedly identifies as Sunni.
Likewise, it’s untrue that Muslims uniformly agree on sharia. According to a 39-country Pew Research Center poll in 2013, adherents tend to view sharia as “the revealed word of God” rather than “a body of law.” Even where “sharia law” is thought desirable, there are few countries where a majority believes that law should apply to Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Not that railing against his religion is her only strategy for derailing the Ellison campaign train.
She said she recently petitioned the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board to get Ellison’s law license revoked. Doing so ignores an irony—Anderson is herself no attorney. In fact, she harbors deep animus toward pretty much all lawyers and declares she doesn’t need to be one to serve as AG. (She’s right that it’s not required.)
The lawyers’ board did not share its reply to Anderson’s complaint. But Anderson read part of it aloud over the phone.
It said she accuses Ellison of using his congressional office and attorney general candidacy “to attack President Trump and incite violence.” She also charged that Ellison’s conduct “constitutes treason” and “violates the separation of powers doctrine.”
Anderson said the board won’t investigate her complaint. Its website shows that Ellison is current on his Minnesota registration fees as of January 2018. It also indicates that he voluntarily requested his Minnesota license be inactivated because he hasn’t kept up on local CLE credits.
If he did that, he’d be immediately reinstated, a board spokeswoman said.
AG ambitions
Not all of Anderson’s goals involve Ellison. In fact, should she somehow manage once again to Neuville the competition, she has other big plans.
Atop her list, Anderson wants somehow to revive Magner v. Gallagher, a St. Paul fair housing case that the U.S. Supreme Court accepted in 2011, but never heard because the parties agreed to a dismissal.
Anderson blames that outcome on the machinations of former assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez. Perez is now chair of the Democratic National Committee—where Ellison is deputy chair. So he is implicated, too. “I call them the Obama boys,” she said.
Anderson also wants to eliminate all of Minnesota’s 87 county attorneys and its city attorneys. In their place, 10 statewide district attorneys would be appointed under her command. Why do that? “Because we are over-lawed and over-lawyered,” she said. “I believe that we do not need all these lawyers.”
Further, she would forcefully utilize parens patrie (“parent of the fatherland”). The legal precept allows state attorneys general to, for example, sue private companies on behalf of citizens for monetary damages, in a manner similar to class actions.
So, again, why? “Because we wouldn’t have all these family court squabbles, let’s put it that way,” she said.
Anderson additionally wants to impeach some judges and accomplish various other things besides. She knows she is never going to make any of it happen. But it doesn’t matter because, to Anderson, more than personal ambition is at stake.
“I’m not going to win the election,” Anderson said. “But let’s hope to God that we win the war for Donald Trump.”
Name: Sharon Anderson
Age: Not available
Lives in: Not available
Education: “School of hard knocks.”
Family: Widowed. One daughter, seven grandchildren.
Hobbies: Politics.
Surprising fact: “The only addiction that I have is this computer. My computer is my main man.”



From: sharon4anderson@aol.com
To: kfeatherly@minnlawyer.comdschultz@gw.hamline.edumvolpe998@gmail.comsharon4anderson@aol.combsalisbury@pioneerpress.comtvezner@pioneerpress.comfmelo@pioneerpress.combshaw@pioneerpress.combill4dahn@aol.comeditor@pioneerpress.comjohn.choi@co.ramsey.mn.uselections@co.ramsey.mn.usasksheriff@co.ramsey.mn.us
Sent: 8/9/2018 5:21:53 PM Central Standard Time
Subject: Minnesota LawyerSharonAnderson aka Scarrella4MNAGPioneerpress nothing

                Wed.9Aug2018
https://www.twincities.com/2018/08/09/lessard-a-possible-snag-for-wardlow-in-republican-ag-race/
 re Bill Salisbury www.pioneerpress.com  651-228-5538 Curious why BSxxx wilfully failed to mention Candidate Sharon Anderson?   However as soon as Kevin Featherly  651-222-1837 or his editor JeffS  612-588-1575correction please use.
https://minnlawyer.com/2018/08/09/quirky-candidate-andersons-running-for-ag-again/
                               DISCLAIMER AFFIANT HAS SO MANY BRIEFS, PDF Files EVEN SHARON CAN'T FIND.
            Hopefully Corrections Sharon lives in St. Paul,MN
Updated Research re Sandra Grazzini Rucki and Dede Eavold and Michelle MacDonald is by and thro Chicago Investigate Reporter Michael Volpe
http://theeprovocateur.blogspot.com/


To the Above Named: Hey Feathers You do not need a Libel Lawyer or any Lawyer, altho please make a few corrections  listed below are you publishing Affiants Obituary or Legacy Affiant the BlogginBabe also http://sharon4mnag.blogspot.com  to Educate the Public on sharia Law, Election Reform ,Abolish Committment Panel,expose Judicial Corruption as Sharon intends to Vote in pdf format tomorrow. Sharons Modis Operxxx is to Challenge Canvass Boards.
From: sharon4anderson@aol.com
To: kfeatherly@minnlawyer.comkfeatherly@yahoo.comsharon4anderson@aol.comdschultz@gw.hamline.edu
Sent: 8/9/2018 8:57:08 AM Central Standard Time
Subject: Check out Minnesota LawyerSharonAnderson aka Scarrella4MNAG

                                     
Thurs9Aug2018
                     Hey Kevin  
 When you say Quirky Sharon Scarrella Anderson aka Peterson says QuiTam,Quiet Title,  Article is OK, perhaps Sharon did not have the Metro Fare to meet with you,       Currently going to Elder Cafe,  NO LIBEL Yet, by Errors and Omission the Name of Scarrella should have been addressed.
                        The Submit Button does not work on the Article
                           
http://sharon4mnag.blogspot.com   https://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=sb-top&v_t=wscreen50-bb&q=Rev+Sharon+Scarrella+vs+Midwest+Federal+Savings+and+Loan

Minnesota Lawyer


Quirky candidate Anderson’s running for AG—again Kevin Featherly August 9, 2018 0

Anyone spending an hour interviewing Minnesota attorney general candidate Sharon Anderson is likely to wish a libel lawyer were present.
We can’t repeat the various allegations, old and new, that the Republican hopeful lodged in an hour-long Aug. 2 interview. Which is to say, we can’t relate a lot of what she has to say. But here’s one 
relatively benign sample:
“I’ve been thrown in jail, tmhrown in nut wards,” Anderson said. “They’re trying to bug me in this house. I’ve been reduced to poverty. They tried to hack my computer with my Windows 10.”
INSTEAD OF BUG use the term Harrasment use of Illegal  Excessive Consumption . https://taxthemax.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2018-06-04T11:35:00-0
https://taxthemax.blogspot.com/2018/03/697surreypropertytaxpaidunderprotes
          To harrass, bully, Stalking Sharon by DSI Ed Smith please also investigate Forensic Files 
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SharonsFiles/photos/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SharonsFiles/files/


Alone among nine candidates in this profile series, Anderson declined to meet or be photographed. As a partial explanation for that, she said that she recently heard radio host Rush Limbaugh say on air that White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders now needs a security detail. Anderson, obviously, has no such luxury.  
Sharons SS in the bank on the 3rd, Sharon did not have Bus fare to meet Mr Feathers. Citizenery of MN must keep their Dignity, even tho Disabled, older etc.
“Now, I’m not big and important like that,” she said. “But I do rock a lot of boats with a lot of people.”  
City St. Paul is Titanic Boat sinking I'M not,
A lot of people rock boats with her, too.
Google Michael Volpe
Over decades, Anderson has filed voluminous lawsuits against judges, law enforcement, prosecutors, elected officials and banks. She remains perpetually miffed with the authorities who evicted her from her St. Paul Summit Avenue residence in 1988 for failing to pay property taxes. (She says she can prove she paid up and that the property remains hers.)    
http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/PDFedem2006/file8.pdf
Forensic Files
http://sharon4anderson.org and http://www.angelfire.com/mn3/andersonadvocates/2006water/PDFcases/sharoncase


Though she began running for office at least a decade before that, her eviction is at the root of a perpetual quest to attack public malfeasance, using the ballot box.
“How am I, with no money, going to expose government corruption?” she said. “Only by being a candidate.” She already looks ahead to her next race for St. Paul City Council, she said.
Anderson remains vexed, too, by her 1996 
arrest in Itasca County on terroristic threat and harassment charges, which led to 94 days in a psychiatric ward. Eventually a judge released her after finding her in partial remission from her illness. Released as Sharons 2nd husband never filed charges and he was Murdered, Released as NO CASE. http://cpljimanderson.blogspot.com 

One positive came from that experience—a campaign slogan. “I am the only certified sane candidate,” Anderson says happily. She has had made the most of her motto.
https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/1974/45250-1.html  
Learned in Law has never been defined by Legislature 
https://sharon4anderson.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/google-lawmen-cases-
mslature to mean License.

Anderson has run for everything from state House to Minnesota Supreme Court justice, even U.S. president. Her electoral record roughly parallels her trial record; she rarely comes close to winning. She has, however, cracked 30 percent at the polls nine times, most recently in a 2016 state Senate race.
And she can look back on one startling triumph. In 1994, Anderson beat Tom Neuville in the attorney general’s race primary. Neuville, then a state senator, retired in January from his job as a Rice County district court judge.
Surprisingly, Anderson said she found that experience rather joyless. She can think of only one moment she really liked—being interviewed in radio talk show host Barbara Carlson’s famous hot tub. “That was fun!” she said.
Exposing corruption
Anderson can be disarmingly warm when talking of her hosta plants or the kitty mewing in the background. But she can shock, too. The figures who populate her Centaurus-like constellation of grievances, for example, often get indecorous appellations attached to their names—“the Muslim,” “the lesbian,” “the black man.”
ALL LIVES MATTER 
Sometimes she moves from one mood extreme to the other in a single ping-pong paragraph of dialogue. “I know I am hard to follow,” she said. “But I have 40 years of evidence on all this stuff.”
Her life’s purpose is to lay all that evidence out to the public, revealing government abuses that she says have been visited on her and other people—like convicted parental-rights violator 
Sandra Grazzini-Rucki—whose causes she champions. You can look those manifold allegations on her campaign web site, blog postings and long litigation trail. We’ll refrain—that libel attorney is still not handy.
Attorneys favorable tom Fitton www.judicialwatch.org https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/hud-sued-for-recor
                      Eric Kaardal, Michelle MacDonald et al.
While she acknowledges winning is not her aim, Anderson claims she is “more serious” than usual about this race. For that, she cites twin causes: Donald Trump and 
Keith Ellison.
“I am loyal to Donald Trump,” Anderson swoons. “I love that man. I love his family.”
She calls the president her “mentor,” though one wonders if the reverse couldn’t be true. Her innovative 1994 campaign promise to throw Skip Humphrey in prison for treason predates the Trumpian “Lock her up!” chant by two full decades.
Her feelings toward Ellison are noticeably less rhapsodic. Because of his religion, she said, Ellison is unqualified to be attorney general. If he should win, she fears being recast as a “second-class citizen.” 
Even Licensed Lawyers make us 2nd class citizens.
“Ellison is a Muslim,” she says dispositively. “How can a Muslim take an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution? He can’t. He owes his allegiance to the Quran and to sharia law.”
She cannot be convinced that Islam’s followers constitute no unified, purpose-driven bloc in opposition to her politics. “There is only one kind of Muslim that I know of,” Anderson said.
We feel morally obliged to point out that she is wrong. To state the obvious, Sunnis, Shiites and Sufis are three major Islamic variants of Islam and they have major doctrinal differences. Ellison reportedly 
identifies as Sunni.
Likewise, it’s untrue that Muslims uniformly agree on sharia. According to a 39-country 
Pew Research Center poll in 2013, adherents tend to view sharia as “the revealed word of God” rather than “a body of law.” Even where “sharia law” is thought desirable, there are few countries where a majority believes that law should apply to Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Not that railing against his religion is her only strategy for derailing the Ellison campaign train.
She said she recently petitioned the 
Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board to get Ellison’s law license revoked. Doing so ignores an irony—Anderson is herself no attorney. In fact, she harbors deep animus toward pretty much all lawyers and declares she doesn’t need to be one to serve as AG. (She’s right that it’s not required.)
The lawyers’ board did not share its reply to Anderson’s complaint. But Anderson read part of it aloud over the phone.
Posted at http://sharon4mnag.blogspot.com 

It said she accuses Ellison of using his congressional office and attorney general candidacy “to attack President Trump and incite violence.” She also charged that Ellison’s conduct “constitutes treason” and “violates the separation of powers doctrine.”
Anderson said the board won’t investigate her complaint. Its 
website shows that Ellison is current on his Minnesota registration fees as of January 2018. It also indicates that he voluntarily requested his Minnesota license be inactivated because he hasn’t kept up on local CLE credits.
If he did that, he’d be immediately reinstated, a board spokeswoman said.
AG ambitions
Not all of Anderson’s goals involve Ellison. In fact, should she somehow manage once again to Neuville the competition, she has other big plans.
Atop her list, Anderson wants somehow to revive 
Magner v. Gallagher, a St. Paul fair housing case that the U.S. Supreme Court accepted in 2011, but never heard because the parties agreed to a dismissal
.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/magner-v-gallagher/
                        
Facts current AG Lori Swanson wilful neglience to Write a Brief is Pervase/Fatal
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/DOJ-St-Paul.pdf
Feathers stated he would not read 
Executive Summary In early February 2012, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez made a secret deal behind closed doors with St. Paul, Minnesota, Mayor Christopher Coleman and St. Paul’s outside counsel, David Lillehaug. Perez agreed to commit the Department of Justice to declining intervention in a False Claims Act qui tam complaint filed by whistleblower Fredrick Newell against the City of St. Paul, as well as a second qui tam complaint pending against the City, in exchange for the City’s commitment to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court, an appeal involving the validity of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act. Perez sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act. Calling disparate impact theory the “lynchpin” of civil rights enforcement, Perez simply could not allow the Court to rule. Perez sought leverage to stop the City from pressing its appeal. His search led him to David Lillehaug and then to Newell’s lawsuit against the City. Fredrick Newell, a minister and small-business owner in St. Paul, had spent almost a decade working to improve economic opportunities for low-income residents in his community. In 2009, Newell filed a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that the City of St. Paul had received tens of millions of dollars of community development funds, including stimulus funding, by improperly certifying its compliance with federal law. By November 2011, Newell had spent over two years discussing his case with career attorneys in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Minnesota, and the Civil Fraud Section within the Justice Department’s Civil Division. These three entities, which had each invested a substantial amount of time and resources into Newell’s case, regarded this as a strong case potentially worth as much as $200 million for taxpayers and recommended that the federal government join the suit. These career attorneys even went so far as to prepare a formal memorandum recommending intervention, calling St. Paul’s actions a “particularly egregious example of false certifications.” All this work was for naught. In late November 2011, Lillehaug made Perez aware of Newell’s pending case against the City and the possibility that the Justice Department may intervene. A trade was proposed: non-intervention in Newell’s case for the withdrawal of Magner. Perez contacted HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky and asked her to reconsider HUD’s support for intervention in Newell’s case. Perez also spoke to then-Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Tony West and B. Todd Jones, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, alerting them to his new interest in Newell’s case. The withdrawal of HUD’s support for Newell’s case led to an erosion of support in the Civil Division, a process that was actively managed by Perez. In January 2012, Perez began leading negotiations with Lillehaug, offering him a “roadmap” to a global settlement. Once negotiations appeared to break down, Perez boarded a plane and flew to Minnesota to meet face-to-face with Mayor Coleman. At that early February meeting, Perez pleaded for the fate of disparate impact and reiterated the Justice Department’s willingness to strike a deal. His lobbying paid off when Lillehaug accepted the deal on Mayor
                                 

Anderson blames that outcome on the machinations of former assistant U.S. attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez. Perez is now chair of the Democratic National Committee—where Ellison is deputy chair. So he is implicated, too. “I call them the Obama boys,” she said.
Anderson also wants to eliminate all of Minnesota’s 87 county attorneys and its city attorneys. In their place, 10 statewide district attorneys would be appointed under her command. Why do that? “Because we are over-lawed and over-lawyered,” she said. “I believe that we do not need all these lawyers.”
Further, she would forcefully utilize 
parens patrie (“parent of the fatherland”). The legal precept allows state attorneys general to, for example, sue private companies on behalf of citizens for monetary damages, in a manner similar to class actions.
So, again, why? “Because we

SCOTUSblog Coverage

  • Fair housing case dismissed (Lyle Denniston)
  • Petition of the day (Conor McEvily)

    Briefs and Documents

    Merits Briefs for the Petitioners
    • Brief for Steve Magner et al.
      Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
      • Brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association et al.
      • Brief of the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey
      • Brief of the Pacific Legal Foundation et al.
      • Brief of the Independent Community Bankers of America et al.
      • Brief of the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
      • Brief of the American Bankers Association et al. 
        Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
        • Brief of the United States
          Merits Briefs for the Respondents
          • Brief of Thomas Gallagher et al.
            Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
            • Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund
            • Brief of the Lawyer’s Committee on Civil Rights et al. 
            • Brief of the Housing Advocates, Inc., and Buckeye Community Hope Foundation
            • Brief of the National Fair Housing Alliance et al. 
            • Brief of the Opportunity Agenda et al. 
            • Brief of the ACLU
            • Brief of Massachusetts et al.
            • Brief of Henry G. Cisneros
            • Brief of AARP and Mount Holly Gardens Citizens In Action

              Certiorari-stage documents

              • Opinion below (8th Cir.)
              • Petition for certiorari
              • Brief in opposition of respondents Thomas J. Gallagher et al.
              • Petitioners' reply

                     
                wouldn’t have all these family court squabbles, let’s put it that way,” she said.
                Anderson additionally wants to impeach some judges and accomplish various other things besides. She knows she is never going to make any of it happen. But it doesn’t matter because, to Anderson, more than personal ambition is at stake.
                “I’m not going to win the election,” Anderson said. “But let’s hope to God that we win the war for Donald Trump.”


                Name: Sharon Anderson
                Age: Not available
                Lives in: Not available   St. PAUL,MN
                Education: “School of hard knocks.”
                Family: Widowed. One daughter, seven grandchildren.
                Hobbies: Politics.
                Surprising fact: “The only addiction that I have is this computer. My computer is my main man.”





                Current Candidate MNAG 
                LEGAL NOTICE: /s/Sharon4Anderson@aol.com ECF_P165913Pacersa1299 telfx: 651-776-5835: HEALTHCARE  
                http://blogitbabe.blogspot.com 
                http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/10-1032-bsac-Massachusetts.pdf

                Attorney ProSe_InFact,Private Attorney General QuiTam Whistleblower, Candidate AG2010 www.sharonagmn2010.blogsbd pot.com Blogger: www.facebook.com/sharon4anderson www.twitter.com/sharon4andersonHomestead Act of 1862| ScriDocument's are based on SEC filings,www.slideshare.com/sharonanderson
                www.taxthemax.blogspot.com
                www.sharon4anderson.org
                 www.scotusblog.com
                 whistbleblower protection issues, MY FindLaw SharonsWritProA06_1150_30Jun06_26
                 Sharons-Psychic-Whispers: Sharons Gypsy Curse-Court-Cop Corruption 3Apr0





                Sharon Anderson aka Scarrella 651-776-5835
                sharon4anderson@aol.com
                http://blogitbabe.blogspot.com

                Sharons-NewsClipsviaMNLawyerKevinFeatherlyreMichelleMacDonald

                Michael Brodkorb and Allison Mann, coauthors of MissinginMinnesota.com, are being sued for defamation by Michelle MacDonald, the West St. Paul attorney and Supreme Court candidate. MacDonald seeks damages exceeding $50,000, removal of a “false image” from their website and an order directing the duo to “cease their wrongful conduct.” The case is scheduled for a Sept. 10 hearing in Ramsey County District Court. (Staff photo: Kevin Featherly)

                Michelle MacDonald defamation suit may lack factual basis


                Michelle MacDonald
                This photo of Michelle MacDonald was taken after an incident in a Dakota County courtroom in 2013. MacDonald says it’s misleading to refer to it as a “booking photo.”
                Two of three key claims in lawyer Michelle MacDonald’s defamation lawsuit against Michael Brodkorb and his muckraking website appear unfounded, Minnesota Lawyer has learned.
                Meanwhile Brodkorb, who accuses MacDonald of trying to squelch his First Amendment rights as a journalist, asserts that a third allegation in her suit also is factually inaccurate. Minnesota Lawyer could not independently verify that.
                MacDonald and her law firm has sued Brodkorb’s muckraking MissingInMinnesota.com website, saying it has violated the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics by repeatedly defaming her. “I want him to stop,” MacDonald said in an interview Wednesday.
                With a doggedness that verges on obsession, the site covers just one story — the case of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, whose children went missing for 944 days until they were found on a northern Minnesota ranch.
                Grazzini-Rucki and MacDonald’s 2014 Supreme Court campaign manager, Dede Evavold, both were convicted on six felony counts related to the case. The criminal prosecutions ended two years ago; yet the site has barely slowed its coverage.
                There could be a reason for that: Brodkorb and his co-author Allison Mann say they are writing a book about the case and expect to make an announcement about its publication in the coming weeks.
                MacDonald’s complaint alleges that site repeatedly has made “false and defamatory” references to her as a “person of interest” in the Grazzini-Rucki case. It also alleges that the site keeps publishing what MacDonald calls a “false image” of herself.
                A third count involves a 2013 traffic stop that she says Brodkorb has misrepresented publicly.
                ‘Person of interest’
                MacDonald’s complaint says Brodkorb’s site perpetuates “a lie” when it repeatedly labels her a onetime “person of interest” in the 2013 disappearance of Grazzini-Rucki’s two daughters.
                MacDonald alleges that Brodkorb has ignored demands to stop using the descriptor. She was never a person of interest in the case, she insists.
                “It’s defamation at this point,” the complaint says, quoting a text message from MacDonald to Brodkorb. “Pull it. These are your words. You labeled me, not them. It’s you. Take it down.”
                By “them,” MacDonald means the Lakeville Police Department, which initiated the investigation into the kids’ disappearance. The complaint says MacDonald later contacted the department and was told that she was never considered a “person of interest” in the case.
                She also claims that Star Tribune reporter Brandon Stahl, who first used that phrase in his reporting on April 29, 2015, stopped after she contacted him. She said the Star Tribune never again used the phrase.
                Neither assertion appears to be true. The Star Tribune — both in Stahl’s reporting and in that of least one other beat writer, Karen Zamora — continued using the phrase long after April 29, 2015. One reference, in a Zamora story, was published as recently as July 29, 2016.
                Meanwhile, a Lakeville Police investigator confirmed Thursday morning that investigators initially did consider MacDonald a “person of interest” in the children’s disappearance.
                “We believed that she was in the know,” said Lakeville Police Lt. Jason Polinski. Investigators based that suspicion on MacDonald’s “statements and actions” at the time, believing she wasn’t “upfront” about what she knew.
                “We believed she was involved and knew what was going on,” Polinski said Thursday. “However, we could never prove that. So she was never a suspect. But, yes, she was a person of interest.”
                In an interview Wednesday, Brodkorb said he has been told the same thing by Lakeville police officials somewhere between six and 12 times while reporting the story.
                “It’s the reality,” Brodkorb said. “What Michelle, I think, is doing here is she is trying to obfuscate from those underlying facts.”
                False image
                MacDonald’s suit also charges Brodkorb and his co-author Allison Mann with repeatedly posting a “false image” that she says inaccurately gets depicted as her booking photo.
                The photo was taken after a bizarre incident in a Dakota County courtroom on Sept. 12, 2013, during a child custody hearing. MacDonald said she was there representing Grazzini-Rucki, several months after the girls went missing.
                In court that day, MacDonald got arrested and was led away by deputies after she took photos in the courtroom against court rules. Video shows that, about a half hour later, she was brought back into court in a wheelchair — she had reportedly refused to stand up and walk back into court on a judge’s order. She was also handcuffed.
                MacDonald admits a photo was taken after that incident, but that she was never “booked” into custody, despite spending the night in jail. Therefore, Brodkorb and his site defame her reputation by repeatedly calling it a “booking photo” or “mug shot,” she says.
                “I would check into that a little bit,” MacDonald said Wednesday. “Because I am telling you that’s a lie.”
                She appears to be incorrect. On Thursday morning, a Dakota County Sheriff’s Department spokesperson found the same image on the county jail’s booking photo database. The image, which the county spokesperson confirmed is a booking shot, was forwarded to Minnesota Lawyer.
                “The photograph is not a mug shot,” MacDonald insists. “[Brodkorb] had that surface. It had never surfaced before.”
                That leads to a weird twist in the story. On May 25, MacDonald filed a complaint against Brodkorb with Eagan police in connection with the photo.
                An officer’s report of that incident, obtained by Minnesota Lawyer, says MacDonald told the cop that Brodkorb himself took the photo, then uploaded it to a public mugshot website, arrestedinminnesota.com—a site that can no longer be found online.
                From there, she told the officer, Brodkorb posted the picture to his own website and began misrepresenting it as a booking photo, according to the police report.
                But Lakeville Police Officer Mike Reuss said in that report that he found the image on a law enforcement database and judged it to be public-record booking photo. In that report, however, he mislabeled it as a DUI booking photo.
                MacDonald’s “criminal defamation” complaint was never investigated.
                MacDonald said Wednesday that Reuss misrepresented what she told him. “I never said that to the police officer, I never said it to Brodkorb,” MacDonald said. “It’s a lie.”
                That’s “classic Michelle MacDonald,” said blogger Mann. “Everything gets so tangled into this web that she weaves,” Mann said.
                Traffic stop
                MacDonald’s lawsuit also asserts that Brodkorb falsely alleged in a 2016 tweet that she was once convicted for driving while intoxicated. She was charged with DUI following a 2013 traffic stop in Rosemount, but was never convicted on that charge.
                She was, however, convicted on a gross misdemeanor count of refusing to submit to a sobriety test and two misdemeanor counts—obstructing the legal process and speeding—in connection with that traffic stop.
                Minnesota Lawyer could not find the Brodkorb tweet she alludes to and he says he has never made that claim. “I can find no record whatsoever that I ever said in my reporting that she was convicted of DUI,” he said.
                MacDonald is a candidate for Minnesota Supreme Court who was conditionally reinstated as an attorney in April following disciplinary action in January. Her suit against Brodkorb and his MissingInMinnesota.com website charges “defamation per se” and “defamation by implication.”
                MacDonald said she thinks that Brodkorb’s website has a vendetta against her and Grazzini-Rucki, one that is financed by David Rucki. She notes that Mann is a paralegal in the office of Lisa Elliott, an attorney who represents David Rucki. Mann confirms that.
                However, Brodkorb and Mann both insist that they get no financing from Elliot’s client. “This is all an independent endeavor,” Brodkorb said.
                MacDonald seeks damages in excess of $50,000, removal of the photo and an order directing Mann and Brodkorb to “cease their wrongful conduct,” among other remedies.
                The case was initially filed in both Dakota County and Ramsey County. The Dakota County case, which MacDonald said was filed in error, was dismissed on Aug. 20.
                It will proceed in Ramsey County District Court on Sept. 10 in the courtroom of Judge Richard H. Kyle.


                Friday, June 1, 2018

                HallbrooksUnpublishedOpinionDestroyingSandraGrazzini-Rucki

                THE PROVOCATEUR

                UNABATED BY MNAG LORI SWANSON RE PARENS PATRIE CHILD SUPPORT WHEN REDUCED TO POVERTY,LOSS EMPLOYMENT,CHILDREN TAKEN IS BIZZARE http://www.loriswanson.com/newsandupdates

                RUCKI CHILDREN 2 OVER AGE 20, PERMANENT HARM, BY COURT ORDERS OF DEPRIVATION. The Faces of Sandra Grazzini-Rucki shows the Heinous,Repugnant Orders of Dual Judge Karen Asphaug,David Knutson also on State Committment Panel.  FURTHER The Abusive X Husband should be Ashamed.
                                   UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS DESTROYING COMMERCE JUDGE HALLBROOK MUST BE
                                                             CITED. CHECK MNCIS A16-1970 DAKOTA CO 19AV-FA-11-1273
                                                             CONSTUTIONALITY OF UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS
                                                                  CONTRARY TO STATE,FEDERAL IRS CODES,
                                                                           CIVIL RIGHTS.






                Please check out my new books, "Prosecutors Gone Wild: The Inside Story of the Trial of Chuck Panici, John Gliottoni, and Louise Marshall" and also, "The Definitive Dossier of PTSD in Whistleblowers"

                Friday, June 1, 2018

                Now Minnesota Targeting Sandra Grazzini-Rucki With Child Support

                                                                                    (Sandra Grazzini-Rucki)

                Sandra Grazzini-Rucki has been out of jail for less than a month but she’s in danger of going back, this time for child support.
                Sandra Grazzini-Rucki finally completed her prison sentence from her 2016 conviction for parental deprivation in May, but the law wasted no time going after her again.
                While still in prison, Grazzini-Rucki was served with a child support order which mandates she pay her multi-millionaire ex-husband, David Rucki, $950 per month in child support starting on June 1, 2018.
                Sandra Grazzini-Rucki is homeless, penniless, and hasn’t worked in approximately three years while David Rucki owns four homes, nine classic cars, and a multi-million dollar business but that didn’t stop Magistrate Judge Maria Pastoor from imposing the child support order.
                The order was first imposed in the summer 2016 while her criminal trial was ongoing, but it was suspended while she was serving time.
                But that came to an end with an order dated May 17, 2018.
                “The support terms of the October 13, 2016, are hereby reinstated on June 1, 2018.”
                Remarkably, Pastoor even claimed that the multi-millionaire David Rucki was on public assistance, “The father receives non-public assistance from (Social Security) Title IVD.”
                This, Pastoor claimed, was evidence he was in need of child support and not evidence of fraud.
                Remarkably, David Rucki has maintained one attorney, Lisa Elliott, since 2012 continuously while also hiring other attorneys like Marshall Tanick to handle other legal matters throughout.
                Somehow he’s able to afford $400 per hour attorneys regularly but still needs $975 per month in child support.
                “The court acknowledges that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki currently earns no money but used the concept of imputed income to justify its ruling.
                “Imputed income allows judges to base child support on an income level the judge deems is reasonable even if the party is not currently earning that living.
                Pastoor and Flaskamps-Halbrooks, based on their rulings, believe that Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, who is convicted of six felonies, is capable of making approximately $65,000 per year, the amount equivalent to $975 per month in child support.
                Not only did David Rucki receive sole custody of the couple’s five children but he also received 100% of a multi-million dollar estate in a ruling by Judge David Knutson.
                Knutson, Pastoor, and Flaskamps-Halbrooks have declined repeated requests to explain their rulings.
                An email to the court’s public affairs office was also left unreturned.
                Grazzini-Rucki has appealed theruling saying in part, “All of the child support orders in this matter are based on fraud.  The court has never considered my actual income, and simply took my checks, which reflected my actual income and doubled them for their child support purposes.  They never considered that my W-2's for the years 2011-2015 were never greater than $25,000 per year. I averaged around $20,000 to $25,000 per year.  Because of this fact, the orders are all null and void and should be voided. Child support should be recalculated based on my actual income from those years, and my arrears should be adjusted accordingly,
                But she is now in danger of going back to jail for unpaid child support. Grazzini-Rucki remains on probation for parental deprivation.
                As I have noted, in fact, there is a mountain of evidence that her ex-husband is a violent and abusive man. 
                Her two oldest daughters ran away on April 19, 2013, after being forced to live with their paternal aunt. They were hidden by Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and others until late 2015 when they were discovered.
                While she argued that they were hidden for their safety, the criminal court excluded almost all evidence of abuse. 


                1 comment:

                Sharon Anderson said...
                Judge - Court of Appeals 7
                Candidate Name Party Website File Date
                Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks Nonpartisan
                5/22/2018
                Up for Election How can these Judges hold Office when such Harm,Injury, Unhpublished Orders Child Support, when your Children are Taken and you can never see them again.